Romney may be a spineless poll-driven politician, but I don't think he's a total idiot. I think he is is smart enough to realize that there is a difference between being in the Oval Office and on the campaign trail. I think he is intelligent to know that once started and the drag of continued combat happens, the public loses its appetite for the war it thought would be a quick and easy contest. So I don't expect he would start a war with any of the listed options, as none of them would be quick and easy, tho he would back Israel to the hilt if a fight with Iran broke out.

If he goes and invades some place, I expect he'll go for his own version of Grenada. A small country that he could reasonably present as in need of American intervention to restore freedom and which the U.S. could overwhelm with ease. The Maldives and Fiji come to mind as possibilities.

« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 11:50:19 pm by Cheesy Grits »

Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch

He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. — Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a

Romney may be a spineless poll-driven politician, but I don't think he's a total idiot. I think he is is smart enough to realize that there is a difference between being in the Oval Office and on the campaign trail. I think is intelligent to know that once started and the drag of continued combat happens, the public loses its appetite for the war it thought would be a quick and easy contest. So I don't expect he would start a war with any of the listed options, as none of them would be quick and easy, tho he would back Israel to the hilt if a fight with Iran broke out.

If he goes and invades some place, I expect he'll go for his own version of Grenada. A small country that he could reasonably present as in need of American intervention to restore freedom and which the U.S. could overwhelm with ease. The Maldives and Fiji come to mind as possibilities.

So a moderate hero invasion? How about Transnistria? They have a terrible Freedom House score and aren't recognized by anyone.

I'll grant the executive branch has more powers that it needs or was intended to have, especially in regards to war, but really, he can't just roll out of bed one morning and say, "I'm bored, lets invade Venezuela!". The answer(s) (whatever they would be) to this poll are the same answers no matter who wins in November.

Logged

“To oppose something is to maintain it. They say here "all roads lead to Mishnory." To be sure, if you turn your back on Mishnory and walk away from it, you are still on the Mishnory road. To oppose vulgarity is inevitably to be vulgar. You must go somewhere else; you must have another goal; then you walk in a different road.” ― Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness

This is all subject to change of course, but only Afghanistan is my guess, because that's the status quo and I sincerely doubt that Romney is going to want to deviate too far from it in the end. I imagine the prospect of reelection will altogether trump any major risk-taking. I also think that assuming President Romney would hold the same views as the Romney of the primaries is hilarious, given who we're talking about here.

This is all subject to change of course, but only Afghanistan is my guess, because that's the status quo and I sincerely doubt that Romney is going to want to deviate too far from it in the end. I imagine the prospect of reelection will altogether trump any major risk-taking. I also think that assuming President Romney would hold the same views as the Romney of the primaries is hilarious, given who we're talking about here.

Romney will be pushing 70 in January 2017, so maybe he will be satisfied with one term. He will have a tough job ahead of him and the economic crisis will probably still be a factor and make it hard to get reelected.I think Romney will be more committed to finishing the job in Afghanistan than Obama and slightly more likely to assist Israel in an airstrike against Iran. Otherwise I see no major differences. No other wars unless there is an attack on the US or an ally like South Korea.

This is all subject to change of course, but only Afghanistan is my guess, because that's the status quo and I sincerely doubt that Romney is going to want to deviate too far from it in the end. I imagine the prospect of reelection will altogether trump any major risk-taking. I also think that assuming President Romney would hold the same views as the Romney of the primaries is hilarious, given who we're talking about here.

Romney will be pushing 70 in January 2017, so maybe he will be satisfied with one term. He will have a tough job ahead of him and the economic crisis will probably still be a factor and make it hard to get reelected.

True, perhaps he will, especially since the base will presumably still have issues with him. What I was getting at is merely my impression that Romney's more interested in the title than he is in all the work that comes along with it, so I'd imagine he'd be quite risk-averse.

Romney may be a spineless poll-driven politician, but I don't think he's a total idiot. I think he is is smart enough to realize that there is a difference between being in the Oval Office and on the campaign trail. I think is intelligent to know that once started and the drag of continued combat happens, the public loses its appetite for the war it thought would be a quick and easy contest. So I don't expect he would start a war with any of the listed options, as none of them would be quick and easy, tho he would back Israel to the hilt if a fight with Iran broke out.

If he goes and invades some place, I expect he'll go for his own version of Grenada. A small country that he could reasonably present as in need of American intervention to restore freedom and which the U.S. could overwhelm with ease. The Maldives and Fiji come to mind as possibilities.

So a moderate hero invasion? How about Transnistria? They have a terrible Freedom House score and aren't recognized by anyone.

Romney may be a spineless poll-driven politician, but I don't think he's a total idiot. I think he is is smart enough to realize that there is a difference between being in the Oval Office and on the campaign trail. I think is intelligent to know that once started and the drag of continued combat happens, the public loses its appetite for the war it thought would be a quick and easy contest. So I don't expect he would start a war with any of the listed options, as none of them would be quick and easy, tho he would back Israel to the hilt if a fight with Iran broke out.

If he goes and invades some place, I expect he'll go for his own version of Grenada. A small country that he could reasonably present as in need of American intervention to restore freedom and which the U.S. could overwhelm with ease. The Maldives and Fiji come to mind as possibilities.

So a moderate hero invasion? How about Transnistria? They have a terrible Freedom House score and aren't recognized by anyone.

Yeah, after four years of being a non-disruptive poster on the forum, never considered a troublemaker, even someone who was liked well enough to be elected Atlasian President, Napoleon should be allowed to stay.

he can't just roll out of bed one morning and say, "I'm bored, lets invade Venezuela!".

Of course not. It takes months and months of planned villanizing of the country, false accusations, and grandiose declarations about the future of freedom and democracy before you can go to war.

But y'know, Islamic Terrorism, Chavez is Friends with Ahmadenijad, FARC, Islam in South America is a Huge Problem, After All.

Or years and years and sometimes we never "get" to invade the countries we "want to invade" (see Iran, N.Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Sudan, Congo).

Logged

“To oppose something is to maintain it. They say here "all roads lead to Mishnory." To be sure, if you turn your back on Mishnory and walk away from it, you are still on the Mishnory road. To oppose vulgarity is inevitably to be vulgar. You must go somewhere else; you must have another goal; then you walk in a different road.” ― Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness

“To oppose something is to maintain it. They say here "all roads lead to Mishnory." To be sure, if you turn your back on Mishnory and walk away from it, you are still on the Mishnory road. To oppose vulgarity is inevitably to be vulgar. You must go somewhere else; you must have another goal; then you walk in a different road.” ― Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness